In some situations, a person may find that it is desirable to have the ability to grip or cut an object that is located at some distance away from the person. For example, a person may wish to reach an object at a location that is out of the grasping range of the person, such as retrieving an object from a shelf that is some distance over the head of the person. As another example, a person may wish to prune an object that is not readily accessible, such as lopping a tree limb that is some distance above the normal reach of the person.
In each of these examples, and particularly in the case of lopping a tree limb with a conventional cutting device, it is often necessary for the user to contort their body into an unbalanced, uncomfortable and/or unsafe position in order to properly orient the cutting device with respect to the limb.
Conventional lopper designs have wide handle openings and long handle lengths in order to obtain sufficient leverage for cutting large diameter branches and limbs. Typically, increasing the handle opening and/or lengthening the handles increases the leverage by increasing the mechanical advantage. As it is used here, the term "mechanical advantage" refers to a ratio of the force that performs the useful work of the lopper, i.e., the force supplied by the user, to the force that is applied by the lopper, i.e., the cutting force. Consequently, one disadvantage of conventional lopper designs is that they are oversized for the average user, making them more difficult to use.
Another disadvantage of conventional lopper designs is that increasing the mechanical advantage does not necessarily provide a greater cutting force. For example, if the user is unable to supply sufficient force because a conventional lopper is awkwardly positioned with respect to the limb, the cutting force will also not be sufficient to cut the limb.
Examples of conventional lopper designs are disclosed in the U.S. Pat. Nos. to Evans (No. 32,327), Miller (No. 160,464), Donzella (No. 646,048), McGary (No. 2,602,994), McBerty (No. 3,039,189), Melter (No. 5,084,975), Held et al. (No. 5,317,806) and Morgan (No. 5,347,800).